SATURDAY 11:45 PM, 7TH UPDATE: Well, Winter Storm Nemo raged over the Northeast Friday but box office stayed really solid. Despite movie theaters closed by nightfall and venues with lost power. Even though Northeast governors shut down all road traffic and imposed fines and even jailtime. That could have been terrible news for this weekend’s two major openers but wasn’t. Now for the dig out. Both Universal’s frenemies comedy Identity Thief and Open Roads Films’ Steven Soderbergh crime thriller Side Effects scored middling ‘B’ CinemaScores which won’t help or hurt word of mouth. Yet grosses went up double digits – +35% and +52% respectively from Friday to Saturday for the pair. True, this weekend’s total moviegoing is only $100M which is down a disappointing 45% from last year.

Even so I’m astonished that weekend trends showed incredibly strong numbers for Identity Thief (originally in 3,141 theaters) with $11.2 million Friday and $15 million (+35%) Saturday trending for $36M this weekend. Despite (or because) it was critically panned as derivative drivel, the Melissa McCarthy-Jason Bateman comedy is doing fantastic box office in nation’s center (which Hollywood derides as ‘flyover’ country). “Everyone says Identity Thief is really good – even when it gets formulaic,” a rival exec admitted to me. And it only cost $35M, claims the studio. It’s even beating McCarthy’s Bridesmaids opening numbers – $26.2M weekend from 2,918 theaters on May 13, 2011. Of course, that Universal movie went on to do a huge multiple for the studio which would be happy with 3x now.

Identity Thief is doing 1/3 better than tracking predicted — and it was tracking well before the storm. Led initially by females, awareness and interest spread out to men, helped by 2 spots around the Super Bowl this past Sunday. But why Hollywood keeps making this story every decade is beyond me – 2003’s Bringing Down The House with Queen Latifah and Steve Martin, 1992’s HouseSitter with Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin. This one reteams Batemen with his Horrible Bosses director Seth Gordon, and it’s McCarthy’s first starring role since Bridesmaids which earned her an Oscar nomination. Identity Thief was produced by Scott Stuber, Pam Abdy and Bateman who pitched Stuber the idea while they were working together on Couples Retreat. They originally developed the film for two male leads, but then they saw McCarthy in Bridesmaids and adapted the co-lead role for her with more physical comedy. Overseas, pic opens day and date in Croatia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and Taiwan and continues rolling out abroad beginning February 21st.

#3 is Side Effects (originally 2,605 theaters) opening with $2.8M Friday and $4.2M Saturday (+52%) for a $9.4M weekend. Open Road, underwritten by both AMC and Regal, claims it will make a profit at that result even with a production budget of $30M and a marketing spend of $20M. Open Road in January 2012 pre-bought the U.S. rights to Side Effects which was financed by Endgame Entertainment. Pic’s producers are Lorenzo Di Bonaventura, Gregory Jacobs, and Scott Z. Burns who is also the screenwriter. With a marquee director in Steven Soderbergh and a marquee cast in Jude Law, Channing Tatum, Rooney Mara, Catherine Zeta-Jones, it’s perplexing why pic didn’t do better at the box office. Obviously, kicking off the publicity campaign with a New York Times piece doesn’t mean anything anymore. Rooney Mara even appeared on the cover of Vogue and Interview Magazine. But the hip stayed home. The trailer launched on November 2nd with Flight and the media campaign was focused on adults 18-49. A heavy word-of-mouth screening program included screenings for psychiatric doctor groups accompanied by niche publicity about the psychiatric medicine of the movie. The online campaign kicked off with a viral push for the fictional drug featured in the film. Interestingly, much of the content featured on the film’s website could only be revealed by rollover – alluding to the theme of the film that there is much more beneath the surface. Oh, well.

Warner Bros pushed up the print count to 1,405 for its Best Picture Oscar lead contender Argo in its 18th week to jump back into the Top Ten Films for a $2M weekend and $123.2M cume. And Paramount’s Top Gunreissued in 3D IMAX (300 locations) rounded out the Top Ten with $2M for the weekend in support of the Blu-ray debut this month.

84 Comments

Right now in NYC- its just nasty weather , but the two storms aren’t supposed to hit here until tonight.So I can’t see them closing theaters , unless people are afraid to go out in it

peter • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Steven Soderbergh said he would be retiring ten times already! He needs attention badly. If you are really going to retire just do it and stop talking about it and put us all out of your misery!

Richard • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Your ignorance concerning Soderbergh is profound to say the least. Ever since he finished making Che, he said he was working on a 5-6 year plan, and at the end of it, he would retire. Up until now, he’s been entirely consistent.

James • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

He has only said so many times that he was retiring because he was ASKED so many times. The date he gave never changed and he stuck to it.

kieran • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

In other words, a great excuse for two movies that would have likely underperformed, anyway.

CA Dude • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

DITTO.

Q • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

I live in NY and plan on seeing SIDE EFFECTS tonight. Whatever.

lethargic • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

With those “major movies” opening they should be happy they’ll have this excuse when they bomb.

Sandy Bigelow Patterson • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Screw the Boston Mayor it’s worth going to jail to see Identity Thief!

I will risk life and limb and everything else to see Identity Thief!

They can take away my guns and my freedom but I must see Identity Thief!

Bill H • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

that’s the spirit, did they give up when the germans bombed pearl harbor?

mileshigh • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Its a terrible, unfunny movie to risk safety and jail time to just watch when you can go a week later!

Anon • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

I wonder which studio exec said..”It ain’t looking pretty….”

Jake • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

We can always count on snark to really any post. That said, Identity Thief is funny. Great that it’s set to have a strong weekend, despite the storm…and the snark.

joes • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

I really apreciate what Soderbergh tries to do, but lost in all this talk about retirement, which comes across as so self-aggrandizing and needy, is that his films aren’t very good. MAGIC MIKE was a boring script where nothing much happens, and SIDE EFFECTS isn’t getting good reviews. A lot of times he does elevate scripts with nothing there, as in MM, but most of his movies just leave a lot to be desired. The legacy he will leave is not a very impressive or memorable one. His potential will be missed, but not his actual output.

Not getting good reviews? Side Effects is at an 84% on Rotten Tomatoes as of 4:30pm. I’d say that’s pretty solid. The film is fluff, but it’s well made and a fun ride while being smart at the same time. While I don’t necessarily disagree with you that Soderbergh is a director that you can appreciate, but oftentimes find his films missing something (Magic Mike was totally overrated), Side Effects is an adult popcorn flick with a nice lead performance from Jude Law.

morningstar • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

The only thing wrong with Magic Mike was that horrible actress who is studio boss Alan Horn’s daughter…SHE stunk up the movie so bad it never had a chance. She went to the Janet Jones Gretzky school of acting.

joshreader • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

‘Joes,’ I couldn’t agree more with your comment, and thanks for saying it. I think that in our auteur-less age, with only a few directors saying or doing anything interesting, Soderbegh is overpraised, and painfully so. He is (supposedly) a virtuoso, but his movies are cold, hollow. They used to be fashionably soulless; now they are unfashionably so. But lately they’ve been pretty sloppy, too. ‘sex, lies and videotape’ will always be an interesting movie (if overrated at the time – though justly so, since it was really the first of its kind of indie movie – the movie that invented the Sundance generation, more or less), and I have huge affection for ‘King of the Hill’ (what happened to that Steven Soderbergh?) and even the commercial skill and intelligence of ‘Erin Brokovich.’ But the ‘Oceans’ movies were increasingly awful – until it felt as if Soderbergh was rubbing their worthlessness in the audience’s face, laughing at us for being foolish enough to pay to see his trash – and he’s long been eclipsed by talents like Paul Thomas Anderson, Tarantino, and even Aronofsky and Christopher Nolan. You are right – history will view him as someone who never lived up to his potential. He is too clever for his own good, and yet not nearly as smart or as skilled as he thinks he is. If you want to write a book about the artistic value of Soderbergh’s oeuvre and are looking for a title, I suggest ‘Diminishing Returns.’

Bret Easton Ellis' Id • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Great, Joey. I’m sure you’ve made five fucking masterpieces.

vid • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Soderbergh hasn’t made five fucking masterpieces either. Do you ever hear film students or even sharp high school kids talking about Soderbergh? Never. He’s not 1/10th as talented as he thinks he is. Young people (or old people) are not passing around his movies and saying, “You have to see this!” They do that with everyone from Wes Anderson to Woody Allen. Soderbergh’s work is exactly what another poster described it as — Cold. They’re never funny, have zero heart, nothing. They’re just sterile. Magic Mike wasn’t his fault, but it was an empty calorie movie that he actually elevated, as mentioned. It was a chick flick that went nowhere, and had all the ingredients to be a great movie. The guy references SAT NIGHT FEVER, but it’s just a boring movie with a Rhianna hit in the middle of it, which told you everything you need to know about it. Soderbergh made the movie cool, actually, as the script was a complete non-entity, so I’ll give him that. He’s certainly talented, but his career has been a disappointment. He hasn’t made anything people care about.

I enjoy Soderbergh because of the frequency he cranks out movies and his willingness to make films in various genres. Those are qualities far too rare in today’s filmmakers. And while I don’t personally connect to the majority of his films, I will watch almost anything he makes because I like the overall arc of his career and the projects that he chooses.

That said, I most definitely have had countless conversations with film snobs about Soderbergh, pretty much whenever he puts a movie out. And as with any filmmaker, some people love him and some don’t. But I remember when The Limey came out there wasn’t a film school student on earth who didn’t start editing in that style. I do think he’s made a handful of masterpieces and flawed masterpieces. I especially think Out of Sight holds up as everything that can be great about a mainstream Hollywood star vehicle, with one of the most beautifully put together sex scenes I can remember.

Hussman • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

If you look at his entire career, not just his movies, then he does stand out.

-IMHO, ‘Traffic’ remains his best work. Just the use of color filters alone justifies it.
-I didn’t care for 12 that much, but Ocean’s 11 and 13 were the smart, irreverent homages they were supposed to be.
-His HBO work was great. ‘Unscripted’ and ‘K Street’ were so original and made on a shoestring…it’s a shame they didn’t continue.

Also think about the way he got his films made. Most on a shoestring, clever marketing, visionary tactics like releasing video at the same time as film.

He made his mark, and most of them were well worth my time.

TEP • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

I just saw Identity Thief. It’s really great. The audience loved it. Word of mouth is make this one huge.

Cali • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

After reading Rex Reed’s obnoxiously nasty “review” of Identity Thief, I’m going to see it twice this weekend.

thatguy • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

He’s still alive?

jj • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

He’s actually been dead for the last 12 years. Some stunt, huh?

Thomas • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

$30M for Identity Thief? NO CHANCE. They’ll blame the weather but it could be sunny and 60 degrees on the east coast and that pic isn’t opening anywhere near $30M.

Jose Arribas • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

WRONG.

TEP • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

The audience I saw Identity Thief with loved it. I did too.

okkk • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

You have to be daft. It appears you have only seen Magic Mike. Side Effects is currently 84% fresh on RT. It is getting glowing reviews. Go crawl in a hole! Oh wait. You must be living in one.

Scott MacDonough • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Nikki–While it’s great to see you back in action, please try to take things a bit more easily. Your operation was only 3 days ago. Your health (in general) and vision (in particular) are of far more value than the weekend grosses of a couple of throwaway movies!

Greg • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? NOTHING’S more important than the weekend grosses of a couple throwaway movies! (In all seriousness, some people actually believe that…)

Tom • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

I just wasted my lunch hour (90 min) on Identity Thief. There was absolutely no logic in this thing what so ever. It was one foolish (unfunny) scene after another. I love Jason Bateman but this SUCKED BAD. WTF?

Peter Cicero • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

I LOVED Identity Theif! It is going to be a MAJOR HIT despite a blizzard!!!!

Colonel Dan Marr • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

This is all McCarthy and to a lesser extent Bateman. MM’s someone the Midwest porkers can relate to and aspire to be. Imagine what might happen if there was a marginally decent script to work from…

Bill H • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

I think this is true but I also think that it was true for Roseanne (who was never very funny), Queen Latifah, and maybe a few others. There’s a big audience of fat women/people out there looking for a champion and studios are foolish to ignore this demographic.

The ads for this actually made it look SOMEWHAT amusing, not that I would pay to see it but most movie comedies look abysmal even in the ads.

joshreader • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Roseanne never caught on in movies (although Hollywood gave her plenty of chances, including with Meryl Streep as a co-star). Melissa McCarthy is much more broadly likeable than Roseanne (who always turned off at least a segment of her potential audience) and Queen Latifah. And it isn’t because of her weight, although the fact that she doesn’t look like Rooney Mara is refreshing. McCarthy is an enormously talented, versatile and nimble (yes, I said ‘nimble’) performer. She is an extremely good actor, whereas Roseanne could barely act (that’s why famously she surrounded herself with strong, classically trained actors like John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf on ‘Roseanne,’ to draw attention away from her deficiencies) and Latifah is merely a mediocre performer, who is fine in supporting roles but struggles to carry any vehicle. Melissa McCarthy is the whole package!

Brian G. • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

I can’t believe 30 people would go out and see that Identity Thief, let alone it do $30 million in business.

Andy • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

We saw it. So funny. The whole audience laughed throughout. Reed could not have been more wrong, or more insulting.

Mohammed • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

I’m never surprised that americans are willing to pay for sh**. Most people it seems,like their movies like they like their food; processed, devoid of nutritions, and cheap. It’s keeping up with the unhealthy lvingstyle of too many americans.

Anonymous • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

studios have underestimated female audiences for years. women will come out in droves when they get a likable and more relatable female character. whether it’s bridget jones (renee slightly plump) or melissa mccarthy – these women are so woefully underrepresented in cinema that they flock to it.

Holden • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

‘More relatable’? That’s where you lose me. Renee Zellwegger in BRIDGET JONES’ DIARY, yes, good example. Melissa McCarthy, obese goofball, goes beyond ‘relatable’ to simply being a buffoon that we like to laugh at. What Rex Reed said was over the line and it was biased of him not to blast Kevin James and other fat sacks of shit, but his point was salient: fat sacks of shit are not funny by simply being fat sacks of shit. Oliver Hardy is one of the originators of this archetype and its recent history: John Candy, Chris Farley, Jack Black (to a degree), and most anathema Kevin James, have made great livings being fat sacks of shit…

There is nothing wrong with promoting a healthy full-figured woman, and truthfully, yes, the women I know do want to see those characters, but putting Melissa McCarthy in that category sends the wrong message and conflates “fat sack of shit,” and “healthy full-figured woman.”

Dack Rouleau • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

^This. How in the world does Melissa McCarthy represent “healthy, full-figured women”? We’re not talking about Helena Bonham Carter, here; we’re talking about an obese human being. If you believe she is a skilled comedian, fine; but don’t pretend she is a symbol of alternative beauty, when she is only a symbol of medical illness.

Oh, and the storm plaguing the northeast is very, very real. Here in central New Hampshire, it’s nigh-impossible to travel unless you’ve got a set of studded snow-tires, and even then, I wouldn’t be too sure about heading on back roads. Fortunately, the snow is scheduled to stop falling at around noon today.

Bran • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Dack, Dack, Dack. If you limit starring roles to only HEALTHY Hollywood actors, you’ll be left with Gwyneth Paltrow and Mark Wahlburg. What matters is talent. And Melissa McCarthy has it. I don’t think a screen or TV writer has even scratched the surface of her potential. I hope she continues to work until the parts get smart and fresh.

Anonymous • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

i didn’t say ‘aspirational’ i said ‘relatable’. i’m a 120 1b woman but i still relate to bigger women. i know bigger women. they are in my life, in my family. they represent a large portion (no pun intended) of the population. the only place you never see them is up on the big screen, unless it’s a man dressed up in a fat suit. even average or thin women don’t want to just see boring barbies representing us. we want to see as many shades of women up there as we see men. no-one looked at gerard depardieu movies and complained that he was ugly and overweight (well, maybe now they would) but you get my point? heck, if adam sandler were a woman he wouldn’t be headlining any movies. lastly, don’t see the actors you mention above as making a living being ‘fat sacks of shit’. i think most of them have talent. maybe they could do with dropping a few pounds to meet your healthy criteria but they shouldn’t be barred from appearing until they do.

Food for thought • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

@Anonymous:

Your post brings up several good points about Hollywood hypocrisy, but it also takes the reader in another direction re: what viewers really want to see. The obesity epidemic is a very real issue, and while casting overweight performers would certainly grant films a degree of relatability, I’m not sure it is a good idea to champion obesity. If someone is fat because he/she has made poor lifestyle choices, I don’t believe encouraging that behavior via a positive cinematic depiction is the appropriate response.

Perhaps fat people are unfairly excluded, considering the plethora of films with positive depictions of serial killers, drug users, and the mentally ill. However, films depicting mental illness tend to end with the protagonist either overcoming his condition (Happy ending) or succumbing to it (Tragic ending). And we all understand that films depicting serial killers and drug dealers in a positive light are deliberately immoral and often border on fantasy.

The point is, if we’re going to make room for fat performers, then we need to appreciate the greater implications of such casting. A director is reluctant to cast Lindsay Lohan because audiences know she makes poor lifestyle choices . . . is it unfair to compare her to Melissa McCarthy? If so, then why is it unfair to reject Lohan in the first place?

Chris • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Referring to people as ‘fat sacks of sh*t’ doesn’t really help get your point across any better.

Jimmy • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

“But why Hollywood keeps making this story every decade is beyond me”. Umm, because they make a fortune and require zero CG, explosions, car chases and people love to laugh.

The Schwartz • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

Melissa McCarthy is one of the great physical commediennes of all time (watch her SNL episode on Hulu for evidence supporting this claim). The new movie is hilarious because it embraces her slapstick talents.

Sam • on Feb 9, 2013 11:58 pm

There’s no WAY I would risk going out in this frigid 45° weather to see a movie this weekend!